Why? They have to process the individual's tax records anyway so making an adjustment shouldn't be much more hassle. They definitely do this sometimes - I remember myself and some colleagues being hit for BIK income tax on benefits accruing from discounted shares purchased under an Employee Stock Purchase Plan/ESPP and Revenue asked some of them for payment in a lump sum while they adjusted the tax credits for others (including myself) to collect the liability over a few years. If you ever get a demand for a lump sum payment and it would cause hassle then ask them to adjust the tax credits instead to collect it gradually over a period of time. I can't imagine Revenue waiving their claim to outstanding tax liabilities other than when rounding figures to the nearest € as they often do.extopia said:Why not ring or email them and ask? Adjusting individual tax credits sounds like a lot of work for the Revenue.
To be fair the orginial poster was not 100% sure of the wording and it could have actually been (could actually be) along the lines of what maura posted above suggesting that the shortfall will be recouped at a later date (e.g. through and adjustment to the 2006 tax credits).ubiquitous said:It is normal Revenue practice to waive collection of residual PAYE shortfalls such as the above. The notation "this underpayment will not be collected at this time" clearly indicates that this option is being exercised in this case. If the Revenue opt in a particular case to recoup a shortfall by adjusting future years' tax credits, then this is indicated on the P21.
The BIK tax involved in the ESPP that I mentioned above was in or around that sort of figure and Revenue did not waive collection of it.Given that large numbers of civil & public servants (particularly those working for health boards & the Dept of Education) seem to have inadvertently underpaid PAYE amounts of €300 or so in 2004 (presumably due to errors in PPARS and similar systems), the Revenue probably have no option but to write off many of the sums concerned due to the volume of work and hassle that would be involved in recovering the underpayments
To be fair the orginial poster was not 100% sure of the wording and it could have actually been (could actually be) along the lines of what maura posted above suggesting that the shortfall will be recouped at a later date (e.g. through and adjustment to the 2006 tax credits).
Hardly 100% confident, eh?ubiquitous said:I disagree. The P21, as quoted above, said clearly that Revenue will not pursue collection of the shortfall.
Han Solo said:The sentence in the bottom left says something to the effect "I will not be seeking repayment of this underpayment" or something to that effect. (Sorry left it at home)
Where Revenue opts to collect shortfalls by adjusting future tax credits, this is denoted explicitly on the P21.
Yes - but this is what you disagreed with earlier:ubiquitous said:I repeat....
As I have shown Han Solo betrayed a certain lack of certainty about the precise wording of the document which leaves open the possibility of alternative valid explanations such as maura's. Once Han Solo has confirmed the precise wording of the document definite assertions on this specific matter might be more appropriate.ubiquitous said:I disagree. The P21, as quoted above, said clearly that Revenue will not pursue collection of the shortfall.ClubMan said:To be fair the orginial poster was not 100% sure of the wording and it could have actually been (could actually be) along the lines of what maura posted above suggesting that the shortfall will be recouped at a later date (e.g. through and adjustment to the 2006 tax credits).
Yes "at this time" which suggests that it may be collected "at a later time" rather than not at all - for example:ubiquitous said:What alternative valid explanation? Maura's P21 said that "this underpayment will not be collected at this time". Looks clear and cut & dried to me...
ACCK01 said:Underpayment between 400 and 2000 - future tax credits will be adjusted to collect any money outstanding up to 8 years in the future
Yes "at this time" which suggests that it may be collected "at a later time" rather than not at all - for example:
If the rules outlined by ACCK01 are anything to go by then it would suggest that P21s would vary in content to some extent in the different situations described.bullets said:Would a P21 be a standard document?
bullets said:Would a P21 be a standard document?
If so, I guess the accountants who are posting here should probably have more knowledge of what the wording means as opposed to the literal wording
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?